Son of Buddha wrote:Yes ultimate/true/real/ existance is taught in the third turning Buddha Nature sutras,so this view is upheld by the Sutras.this view is upheld by Zhentong practitionersAnd Buddhists all across Taiwan and China.look on the Yogacara vs Dzoghen thread on this forum,you will see a Yogacara practioner from Taiwan upholding this view.

Any tradition that upholds the Third Turning as definite upholds this teaching in their traditions.

Can you show me a living Buddhist tradition where the view of an ultimate ground, a creator source is taught? It is neither Yogacara nor Zhentong.

Here it is from the Cheng weishi lun by Xuanzang, the primary work of East Asian Yogacara, refuting such erroneous views:

According to one doctrine, there is a great, self - existent deity whose substance is real and who is all- pervading, eternal, and the producer of all dharmas. This doctrine is unreasonable. If something produces something, it is not eternal, the noneternal is not all - pervading, and what is not all- pervading is not real. If the deity's substance is all- pervading and eternal, it must contain all powers and be able to produce all dharmas everywhere, at all times, and simultaneously. If he produces dharmas when a desire arises, or according to conditions, this contradicts the doctrine of a single cause. Or else, desires and conditions would arise spontaneously, since the cause [i.e., the deity] is eternal.Other doctrines claim that there is a great Brahma, a Time, a Space, a Starting Point, a Nature, an Ether, a Self, etc., that is eternal and really exists, is endowed with all powers, and is able to produce all dharmas. We refute all these in the same way we did the concept of a Great Lord.(Three Texts on Consciousness Only, p. 20-21)

And from the Mahayanasutralamkara (ch. 6, v. 2, 4) by Maitreya, a cardinal work in Yogacara and Zhentong:

The self-notion itself does not have the identity of a self, nordoes the (selfish being's) deforming habit; their natures are different.Apart from these two there is no other (self), so it arises onlyas an error; liberation is therefore the termination of a mere error.

How is it that beings, directly aware of the relativistic origin ofthings, still resort to some other creator? What kind of darkness isthis through which the existent goes unseen and the nonexistent isobserved?(The Universal Vehicle Discourse Literature, p. 50)

"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

Astus wrote:Can you show me a living Buddhist tradition where the view of an ultimate ground, a creator source is taught? It is neither Yogacara nor Zhentong.

It is much easier for us if you would provide the Sanskrit for your term "ultimate ground" and also the Sanskrit for "creator source." In addition, I don't think you should link ultimate ground & creator source. There can be absolute monism sans a supreme creator god. I refer you to the excellent work The Kunjed Gyalpo otherwise available on Amazon as The Supreme Source: The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde which has been translated into English by Andrew Lukianowicz.

Astus wrote:Can you show me a living Buddhist tradition where the view of an ultimate ground, a creator source is taught? It is neither Yogacara nor Zhentong.

It is much easier for us if you would provide the Sanskrit for your term "ultimate ground" and also the Sanskrit for "creator source." In addition, I don't think you should link ultimate ground & creator source. There can be absolute monism sans a supreme creator god. I refer you to the excellent work The Kunjed Gyalpo otherwise available on Amazon as The Supreme Source: The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde which has been translated into English by Andrew Lukianowicz.

It is often the case, without correct understanding, that words like "ground" or "essence" are taken to refer to some substantial existent. The key here for Buddhism is, if your result is absolute monism, you have misunderstood.

Last edited by futerko on Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche

Astus wrote:Can you show me a living Buddhist tradition where the view of an ultimate ground, a creator source is taught? It is neither Yogacara nor Zhentong.

It is much easier for us if you would provide the Sanskrit for your term "ultimate ground" and also the Sanskrit for "creator source." In addition, I don't think you should link ultimate ground & creator source. There can be absolute monism sans a supreme creator god. I refer you to the excellent work The Kunjed Gyalpo otherwise available on Amazon as The Supreme Source: The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde which has been translated into English by Andrew Lukianowicz.

It is often the case, without correct understanding, that words like "ground" or "essence" are taken to refer to some substantial existent. The key here for Buddhism is, if your result is absolute monism, you have misunderstood.

If any of us are going to make assertions about what the Buddha taught as far there is an "ultimate ground" or a "creator source" it is helpful to see the Pali and/or the Sanskrit. We need to cut back on the baseless opinions about what the Buddha may have said or did not say which, incidentally, seems to be what pop Buddhism is about these days. Switching gears, have you read The Udana Commentary (Paramatthadipani nama Udanatthakatha) lately? It proves to be somewhat instructive on this topic, it says:

Moreover, this whole nibbana, that is spoken of as a “base”, is without foundation since it is not founded anywhere, on account of its immaterial nature and on account of the fact that is it without conditions..." (The Udana Commentary by Dhammapala translated from the Pali by Peter Masefield (1995), page 1015).

songhill wrote:If any of us are going to make assertions about what the Buddha taught as far there is an "ultimate ground" or a "creator source" it is helpful to see the Pali and/or the Sanskrit. We need to cut back on the baseless opinions about what the Buddha may have said or did not say which, incidentally, seems to be what pop Buddhism is about these days. Switching gears, have you read The Udana Commentary (Paramatthadipani nama Udanatthakatha) lately? It proves to be somewhat instructive on this topic, it says:

Moreover, this whole nibbana, that is spoken of as a “base”, is without foundation since it is not founded anywhere, on account of its immaterial nature and on account of the fact that is it without conditions..." (The Udana Commentary by Dhammapala translated from the Pali by Peter Masefield (1995), page 1015).

Funny, because this is exactly what we've been trying to tell you this whole time, but you only seem to take it seriously when it appears in a book approved by you - the arbiter of whether an opinion is baseless or not. You seem to have a knack of disregarding the words of realised masters in favour of historians and scholars. Now I guess all that remains is for you to completely misunderstand what "without foundation" actually means and we can repeat the whole process ad infinitum.

we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche

I have this image of a dog chasing its own tail. It has two options, to continue going in circles or to stop. Eventually it has to rest, but even then it still thinks about what it would feel like to catch the tail. Is the tail real or not? The fact is it makes no difference because the dog can never catch it, and the more elusive the tail seems the more the dog obssess about it.

- the dog can see the tail, and so reasons that it must therefore exist even though it can never quite seem to grasp it - does this reasoning lead the dog to rest or to get back up and start running in circles again?

we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche

songhill wrote:...There can be absolute monism sans a supreme creator god. I refer you to the excellent work The Kunjed Gyalpo otherwise available on Amazon as The Supreme Source: The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde which has been translated into English by Andrew Lukianowicz.

That's really not an accurate description to ascribe to Dzogchen, since loppon Malcolm has explained it this way:

First, one has to distinguish the general theory of dependent origination from the specific theory of dependent origination. The general theory, stated by the Buddha runs "where this exists, that exists, with the arising of that,this arose". The specific theory is the afflicted dependent origination of the tweleve nidanas. There is however also a non-afflicted dependent origination of the path. For the most part, Madhyamaka covers the principle general dependent originationi order to show that all dependent phenomena are empty. Since, according to Madhyamaka, there are no phenonomena that are not dependent, the emptiness of non-dependent phenomena is never an issue, like hair on a tortoise or the son of a barren woman, since there are no non-dependent phenomena at all.

Nagarjuna however does discuss the twelve nidanas, ignorance and so on, in chapter 28 of the MMK.

The basis in Dzogchen is completely free of affliction, it therefore is not something which ever participates in afflicted dependent origination. Unafflicted causality in Dzogchen is described as lhun grub, natural formation. However, since there is causality in the basis, it also must be empty since the manner in which the basis arises from the basis is described as "when this occurs, this arises" and so on. The only reasons why this can happen is because the basis is also completely empty and illusory. It is not something real or ultimate, or truly existent in a definitive sense. If it were, Dzogchen would be no different than Advaita, etc. If the basis were truly real, ulimate or existent, there could be no processess in the basis, Samantabhadra would have no opportunity to recognize his own state and wake up and we sentient beings would have never become deluded. So, even though we do not refer to the basis as dependently originated, natural formation can be understood to underlie dependent origination; in other words, whatever is dependently originated forms naturally. Lhun grub after all simply and only means "sus ma byas", not made by anyone.

Rigpa is not a phenomena, it is not a thing, per se. It is one's knowledge of the basis. Since it is never deluded, it never participates in affliction, therefore, it is excluded from afflicted dependent orgination. However, one can regard it as the beginning of unafflicted dependent origination, and one would not be wrong i.e. the nidanas of samsara begin with avidyā; the nidanas of nirvana begin with vidyā (rigpa).

N

Many meditators know how to meditate,But only a few know how to dismantle [mental clinging].- Je Gyare

songhill wrote:It is much easier for us if you would provide the Sanskrit for your term "ultimate ground" and also the Sanskrit for "creator source." In addition, I don't think you should link ultimate ground & creator source. There can be absolute monism sans a supreme creator god. I refer you to the excellent work The Kunjed Gyalpo otherwise available on Amazon as The Supreme Source: The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde which has been translated into English by Andrew Lukianowicz.

Funny you should mention the Kunjed Gyalpo (anybody interested in reading it can find it here for a free online read) coz I am reading it right now.

The fact that you consider what is being described in the tantra is a "supreme creator god" betrays your complete and utter lack of knowledge of the details of tantric symbolism. It also betrays the fact that you do not have a tantric teacher. More evidence to prove that a teacher is 100% necessary for tantra.

If the gurudoesn't explain the teaching,the pupil won't comprehend -

but the ambrosial tasteof the innate naturewho can declare what that's like?

Lotus_Bitch wrote:That's really not an accurate description to ascribe to Dzogchen, since loppon Malcolm has explained it this way:

The Supreme Source seems Dzogchen to me. It even has a maker of sorts.

"The supreme source, pure and total consciousness, explained:

Listen, great being, to the reason. I, the supreme source, am the sole maker, and no other agent exists in the world. The nature of phenomena is created through me, the three teachers manifest from me and the three classes of disciples arise from me. The very manifestation of existence itself depends on me" (The Supreme Source) http://goo.gl/xkFkp

The stuff about mind being the root of Nirvana and Samsara etc..I don't think buy that this is the same as what is being said by the True Self advocates in this thread, the language may sound like that in some sense, but even a neophyte like me is pretty confident from what little i've been taught and done that it is not some form of monism such as what is being put forth in this thread.

I don't know alot, but seriously suggesting that is just bad/uninformed reading of this kind of material, even a basic explanation of Mahamudra etc. will set straight this kind of idea, including any number of decent available books on the subject by known teachers.

songhill wrote:The Supreme Source seems Dzogchen to me. It even has a maker of sorts.

"The supreme source, pure and total consciousness, explained:

Listen, great being, to the reason. I, the supreme source, am the sole maker, and no other agent exists in the world. The nature of phenomena is created through me, the three teachers manifest from me and the three classes of disciples arise from me. The very manifestation of existence itself depends on me" (The Supreme Source) http://goo.gl/xkFkp

...I am inscrutable and cannot be cultivated.All the ten techniques are likewise transcended,so nothing can be done to affect me.Those who try to approach me on a causal path,desirous of catching a glimpse of my face,seeking me through the ten techniques,fall straight to earth like a tenderfoot sky-walker,tumbling down due to deliberate effort.

I, the supreme source, I am the revelation,and transcend every sphere of activity,so a view of me cannot be cultivated,and the ten techniques are meaningless.If you still think that the ten techniques have purpose,look at me, and finding nothing to see,taking no view, remain at that zero-point.Nothing ever separates us from unoriginated simplicity,so vows and discipline are redundant;the essence is always spontaneously present,so any effort to find it is always superfluous;self-sprung awareness has never been obscured,so gnostic awareness cannot be generated;everybody already lives on my level,so there is no place to reach through purification;I embrace all and everything,so there can be no path that leads to me;I am forever incapable of dualization,so there is never anything to be labeled 'subtle';my form embraces everything,so there has never been any 'duality';I am self-sprung awareness from the very beginning,so I can never be nailed down;since I am the heart of total presence,there is no other source of secret precepts."- Samantabhadra

People have tried on here to assert this as some sort of eternalism/theism. This is what loppon Namdrol/Malcolm said in response:

The mind that is the all-creating king, as Norbu Rinpoche makes clear, is the mind that does not recognize itself, and so enters into samsara, creating its own experience of samsara.

All conditioned phenomena are a product of ignorance, according to Dzogchen view, and so therefore, everything is not real. The basis of that ignorance is the basis, which is also not established as real.

In Dzogchen, everything is unreal, from top to bottom. The basis, in Dzogchen, is described as being "empty not established in any way at all". If the basis is not real, then whatever arises from that basis is not real.

In Dzoghen, dependent origination begins from the non-recognition of the state of the basis, when this happens, one enters into grasping self and other, and then the chain of dependent origination begins.

It might be translated as:Beyond the duality of cause and result,since sentient beings and buddhas are non-dual,buddhahood is not accomplished with the mind.

But that translation would be a little wrong.

A better way to render it would be:

Beyond both cause and result,since both sentient beings and buddhas to do not existbuddhahood is not accomplished with the mind.

What is the difference you ask? Here there is a pair, a cause and a result i.e. sentient being are a cause, buddhas are a result. But since neither exist, therefore, buddhahood cannot be accomplished with mind.

Malcolm wrote:...According to Garab Dorje, prior to the arising of the basis which is latent during the dark eon interval, nevertheless there are traces of affliction and action remaining from the previous eon. Because of these traces, the basis is stirred, the five lights appear and so on (this is why the Dzogcgen doctrine of two different kinds of Buddhahood is critical -- the first, the buddhahood that reverts the basis is the buddhahood asserted by all lower vehicles. The buddhahood that does not revert to the basis is the preserve of only Dzogchen).

The Gongpa Zangthal cycle supplies that during the arising of basis there is a neutral awareness (shes pa lung ma bstan) in the basis that does not recognize itself. This non-recognition is the innate ignorance. When this neutral awareness cognizes the five lights there is a dividing line between nirvana and samsara. When a neutral awareness recognizes the appearance of the basis as its own appearances it is is prajñā and is immediately liberated. That is Samantabhadra. A neutral awareness that does not recognize appearances as its own appearances immediately is the imputing ignorance, and samsara begins (again) because subject and object is imputed. This is all very clearly explained in detail in the eleven topics of Dzogchen Nyinthig. This is also clearly explained by Khenpo Ngawang Palzang.

After the basis arises, innate ignorance is first and even Samantabhadra has it. There is period where a neutral awareness does not recognize itself in anyway. That is the innate ignorance. It (the neutral awareness) can only recognize itself through the display of five lights. When it recognizes that display as its own display, then this is the liberation of Samantabhadra without the performance of an iota of virtue. We on the other hand did not recognize these five lights as our own display, and for us, samsara began, without even an particle of non-virtue having been done.

According to Dzogchen teachings, all sentient being attain Buddhahood by the end of the eon -- this is very clearly stated by Garab Dorje in the commentary above. But there are two kinds of Buddhahood, and as I said above, there is only Buddhahood that does not revert to the basis, and that is the Buddhahood attained through Dzogchen methods. The Buddhahood of other vehicles reverts to the basis, without the corresponding result.

Now then, the reason why we cannot take these metaphors in Uttaratantra literally is that the basis is not Buddhahood. If the basis were Buddhahood, there would be no need for any kind of recognition.

In Dzogchen, there is a difference between the basis and the result. The difference is simply vidyā and avidyā and the recognition and non-recognition that comes from those.

Further, it is not enough merely to understand the general original basis. One must also understand the human body as a basis.....

....What happens is, the best I understand is, is that while their consciousnesses are liberated, they have not completely eradicated all traces from the elements, and therefore, this unresolved contamination causes the latent awareness in the basis to arise from the movement of vāyu in the basis. When this neutral awareness recognizes its own state, it becomes prajñā, when it does not, it becomes ignorance. Just to be clear, this latent awareness of the basis is not a unified field, it is relative and differentiated. Thus, even though all sentient beings acheive liberation, sentient beings are not somehow newly created.

Sentient beings are just nexus of affliction, nothing more.

All these sorts of issues with Buddhism's stance on any sort of eternalist/realist theme has already been brought up on this board. Just do a search and you'll find a thread that has already addressed it in some form.

Many meditators know how to meditate,But only a few know how to dismantle [mental clinging].- Je Gyare

songhill wrote:It is much easier for us if you would provide the Sanskrit for your term "ultimate ground" and also the Sanskrit for "creator source." In addition, I don't think you should link ultimate ground & creator source. There can be absolute monism sans a supreme creator god. I refer you to the excellent work The Kunjed Gyalpo otherwise available on Amazon as The Supreme Source: The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde which has been translated into English by Andrew Lukianowicz.

Brahman is taught to be a creator, the source of all, in Advaita. Such an idea is rejected in Buddhism. I'm not the one claiming that Buddhism agrees with Advaita. Any kind of monism is also rejected, whether it is a material or spiritual substance.

"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

Why quibble? You may hear the same words repeatedly and understand them intellectually and suddenly, they strike one, I repeat, like a lightning flash of living Truth. So now Sadhana has become as simple as that: the limited, vulnerable, insecure individual reaches out to the infinite, the sublime, then realize ultimately that there was never any separation. This cannot be repeated too often. The wonder of it!

This is a lower, provisional teaching for beginners. And Brahman is not the creator--- Brahman is one without a second--- what is there to create? Advaita also teaches Ajati Vada, depending on the context.

Astus wrote:Brahman is taught to be a creator, the source of all, in Advaita. Such an idea is rejected in Buddhism. I'm not the one claiming that Buddhism agrees with Advaita. Any kind of monism is also rejected, whether it is a material or spiritual substance.

The Great Way is not difficultIf only there is no picking or choosing--- Xin Xin Ming

Matt J wrote:This is a lower, provisional teaching for beginners. And Brahman is not the creator--- Brahman is one without a second--- what is there to create? Advaita also teaches Ajati Vada, depending on the context.

Where is the Illusion from then, if not from Brahman?

"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)